I’m trying to determine what exactly Mr. Sylwester’s statements are intended to convey. Surely he cannot be serious in asserting that Republicans are not serious about anthropegenic global warming? At least here on Belmont Club we have been most serious about it, paying particular attention to the scientific veracity of the hypothesis. Many of us have read a lot more about the scientific aspects of this policy issue than the vast majority of the general public, including the young people he heralds as being the unreachables.

How are we supposed to reach these people? Are we supposed to agree with them so as to be taken seriously by a rabble that is ensconced in sloth?

None of it makes any sense to me, taken on face value. What are we supposed to say to a bunch of young people who have been told to believe the sky is falling and the earth is doomed? What if we happen to disagree, and we have very serious reasons for doing so. The scientific consensus happens to be wrong. Very serious scientists have broken with the consensus and they have posted their findings for anyone curious enough (and open minded enough)to go and read. But, no, we’re just a bunch of “deniers” in bed with oil companies, so we’re just not serious enough to be considered by our enlightened and better-educated youngsters.